The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Altfish]

@ChristineM -

I realize that some atheists would probably rather that no God exists. But I sought to ask the question of, if that God exists, then who's to say he's on the side of theists?

There is no 'probably' in it. By definition ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS.
Until you understand that, you are wasting everyone's time typing anything here.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There is no 'probably' in it. By definition ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS.
Until you understand that, you are wasting everyone's time typing anything here.

No, I'm really not. I asked philosophical questions. Whether you want to entertain those questions is up to you.

 

[Altfish]

No, I'm really not. I asked philosophical questions. Whether you want to entertain those questions is up to you.

BUT your question makes no sense.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

BUT your question makes no sense.

If it made no sense, there would probably be no discussion, since no one would even know where to begin or how to reach out.

They make sense in a certain context. The OP has gone through two edits, and it also has an accurate and fitting title: "The Paradox of Atheism and God".

Again, we're talking about paradoxes.

And it also covers the subject of, what if a God exists, but atheists are closer to the people the God favored, should they favor anyone, than theists are?

If I reduce the thread to an elementary level reading, it may be more agreeable and better understood, but it would reduce its meaning.

And that's me. I ask the hard philosophical questions with the occasional knee-jerk reaction. Even if it involves paradoxes. Even if there's a 98% chance of those questions being untrue. I feel it's a part of how I understand philosophy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prove it.

Actually, I know where this will lead.

You'll post the Dictionary definition.

Exactly

And I'll say "You know that statement is true how?"

It's what the word means.


How does your follow up question make sense?

If you ask what a chair is and someone posts this definition:

Do you then also ask "how do you know that statement is true?"

Words have meaning. You can use the word "chair" to actually mean a "toilet" if you want, but that will only make sure people will misunderstand you when you say that you are sitting on a chair.

 

[PureX]

You have not shown any understanding of atheism. All you have done is shown bias and bigotry against it.

Atheism is well and precisely defined, you'll do well to look it up rather than making it up to suit your ego

Most self-proclaimed atheists define atheism as the rejection of all religious assertions regarding the nature and existence of God/gods. But that doesn't actually define anything but the rejection of religious mythology for being religious, and for being mythical.

Pretty silly, really. And certainly not logical. But this nonsensical definition has become the foundation for their anti-religious bias. And so they insist on maintaining it in spite of it being both wrong and nonsensical. Mostly because they are fundamentally anti-religious. Not atheist. But won't accept this because it would reveal the obvious bias.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It's what the word means.


How does your follow up question make sense?

I was asking for the Dictionary definition to be proven on the scale of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which leads to semantics games, even if other statements have points. Which leads me to renounce my acceptance of Atheism.

Using words in the way they are intended as per a dictionary, is not "semantic games".
It's not a "semantic game" when you understand a chair to not be a toilet, but just something to sit on with a rest for the back and perhaps armrests.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Using words in the way they are intended as per a dictionary, is not "semantic games".
It's not a "semantic game" when you understand a chair to not be a toilet, but just something to sit on with a rest for the back and perhaps armrests.

It's a semantics game when you post a Dictionary definition in lieu of debating the main subject. It's a distraction.

 

[ChristineM]

Most self-proclaimed atheists define atheism as the rejection of all religious assertions

That is bull. They may consider religious assertion to be a waste of time but that has nothing to do with the definition.

And so they insist on maintaining it in spite of it being both wrong and nonsensical.

So after making the claim you are now going to provide evidence that atheism is wrong and nonsensical... I'll wait.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most self-proclaimed atheists define atheism as the rejection of all religious assertions regarding the nature and existence of God/gods. But that doesn't actually define anything but the rejection of religious mythology for being religious, and for being mythical.

Pretty silly, really. And certainly not logical. But this nonsensical definition has become the foundation for their anti-religious bias. And so they insist on maintaining it in spite of it being both wrong and nonsensical. Mostly because they are fundamentally anti-religious. Not atheist. But won't accept this because it would reveal the obvious bias.

You confuse atheism with anti-theism. They are not the same, even if they overlap to an extent.

 

[ChristineM]

BUT your question makes no sense.

Yes i tried to make that clear, i obviously failed

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was asking for the Dictionary definition to be proven on the scale of reality.

Which makes no sense.
Words have meaning and that meaning is determined by their common use. These meanings are then put in dictionaries.

It's how language works.

Don't know what else to say to you........
I note you didn't answer my question about the dictionary definition of "chair". Do you also ask these questions about that word?
Probably not. You should ask yourself why.

It's kind of ironic also that you accuse people of playing "semantic games" while you engage in such behavior.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Which makes no sense.
Words have meaning and that meaning is determined by their common use. These meanings are then put in dictionaries.

It's how language works.

Don't know what else to say to you........
I note you didn't answer my question about the dictionary definition of "chair". Do you also ask these questions about that word?
Probably not. You should ask yourself why.

It's kind of ironic also that you accuse people of playing "semantic games" while you engage in such behavior.

I never agreed to debate chairs when I posted this thread. I simply agreed to discuss and debate the OP message.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a semantics game when you post a Dictionary definition in lieu of debating the main subject. It's a distraction.

It is not.

You asked for a definition atheism. Dictionaries provide exactly that: definitions of words to explain their meaning.

@ChristineM first answered your question in her own words. It wasn't enough for you. A dictionary definition also isn't enough for you.

Sounds like it will never be enough for you unless people agree with your personal definition which doesn't correspond to the dictionary definition.

So yeah....
Who's playing semantics?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You asked for a definition atheism.

I never asked for a definition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never agreed to debate chairs when I posted this thread. I simply agreed to discuss and debate the OP message.

This is you acknowledging the game you play. Even if you don't realise it.
Your double standard is showing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never asked for a definition.

Right, I see it now. @ChristineM defined it to correct your misuse of the word.
But you then said "prove it".

How else can that be done but by posting the dictionary definition?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Right, I see it now. @ChristineM defined it to correct your misuse of the word.
But you then said "prove it".

How else can that be done but by posting the dictionary definition?

Right, and some things have happened since I said "prove it", too. Such as:

1. I apologized for that misuse.
2. I admitted that I was wrong in my definition and corrected the OP.
3. I expressed some angst at the fact the main OP message wasn't being tackled.
4. @ChristineM incidentally tackled the OP message, which was kind of her.
5. That being said, I am still seeing some differences between me and atheists, and just kind of pondering them, but not in a malicious fashion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome?

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

You will very likely receive some flack for this post, but let me say that I think it was at the very least thoughtful and sounds like you are being genuine.

I have no answers to your questions, but I wanted you to know that I appreciate your thinking as being, at the least, a good attempt to be unifying rather than divisive.